[ RadSafe ] Interesting article

Wed Aug 4 12:46:39 CDT 2010

Hi, Wade.

As I said, I don't disagree with your overall message.  I think that
there is plenty of room to argue that dose limits are more restrictive
than are needed to protect public health, and I would welcome an open
discussion of this among informed professionals, especially if there
were a chance the policy makers would listen.  

My concern is that the sentences "In fact radiation is much less harmful
than we feared. Given the availability of carbon-free nuclear power,
this makes a sea change in our view of radiation rather urgent." give
the impression that you feel we need to dose limits to the public in
order to facilitate nuclear power.  I realize that your position, like
mine, is that we should not let mindless fear of radiation prevent the
construction of newer, better, safer nuclear power plants.  I suspect we
also agree that the current dose limits likely exceed what is needed to
protect public health, though it is clear you feel more strongly on that
point than I do.  So we are basically in agreement.

My point is that these two issues should not be conflated, and to the
extent they are there are antis who will use it to say, "SEE!  They want
to change the limits so they can poison women and children with
radiation from new power plants!"  I know this is not the intent, and I
recognize that the antis will twist everything to support their world
view, but I don't think we should toss them any easy balls.  

Just my opinion.

-----Original Message-----
From: radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu
[mailto:radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu] On Behalf Of Wade Allison
Sent: Wednesday, August 04, 2010 1:56 AM
To: Brennan, Mike (DOH); neildm at id.doe.gov; radsafe at agni.phys.iit.edu
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Interesting article

For clarification, neither the data nor the article as a whole suggests
any relaxation in reactor control design and safety. Those were the
problems at Chernobyl and Three Mile Island. The concern is the
unwarranted exceptional treatment of human radiation safety. If not
relaxed, this seriously unbalances our prospects in other areas, such as
the use of fossil fuels. 
This does not disagree with Mike, perhaps, but some have misread the
article [for which I was set a rather tight word limit.]

Professor Wade Allison, MA DPhil  w.allison1 at physics.ox.ac.uk 
Emeritus Fellow, Keble College, Oxford, UK OX1 3PG 
"Radiation and Reason" http://www.radiationandreason.com
<http://www.radiationandreason.com/>  (Oct09) 0-9562756-1-3
"Fundamental Physics for Probing and Imaging"
http://www.oup.co.uk/isbn/0-19-920389-X
<https://winfe.physics.ox.ac.uk/exchweb/bin/redir.asp?URL=http://www.oup
.co.uk/isbn/0-19-920389-X>  (Oct06)

________________________________

From: radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu on behalf of Brennan, Mike
(DOH)
Sent: Tue 03/08/2010 19:31
To: neildm at id.doe.gov; radsafe at agni.phys.iit.edu
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Interesting article

While I don't particularly disagree with the author's message, I do wish
he (and everyone else) wouldn't use statements like, "Given the
availability of carbon-free nuclear power, this makes a sea change in
our view of radiation rather urgent."  Selling nuclear power on its
"carbon-free" attribute is a mistake, as it unnecessarily embroils
nuclear power in an argument that should be about the down-side of
burning stuff that throws crap into the air.  Secondly, relaxing the
standards for radiation exposure to the public should not be sold as
necessary for the expansion of nuclear power, as proper design,
construction, and operation of a nuclear power plant does not expose the
public to anything close to current limits (and if someone feels they
need to be sloppier in their design, construction, and/or operation, I
don't think I want them involved.

-----Original Message-----
From: radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu
[mailto:radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu] On Behalf Of
neildm at id.doe.gov
Sent: Tuesday, August 03, 2010 10:31 AM
To: radsafe at agni.phys.iit.edu
Subject: [ RadSafe ] Interesting article

I just found an article on the website of New Scientist magazine
supporting the position of relaxation of radiation limits based on more
rational perception of the risks.

"Our attitude to ionising radiation is irrational, and easing safety
limits would do far more good than harm, says Wade Allison"
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20727715.800-whos-afraid-of-radiat
ion.html

Here is a pirated blurb about the author: "Wade Allison is a nuclear and
medical physicist at the University of Oxford and the author of
Radiation and Reason (YPD Books). He has no ties to the nuclear
industry."

Dave Neil
DOE-ID Lessons Learned Coordinator

Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it.  - George
Santayana

_______________________________________________
You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list

Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood
the RadSafe rules. These can be found at:
http://health.phys.iit.edu/radsaferules.html

For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings
visit: http://health.phys.iit.edu <http://health.phys.iit.edu/> 
_______________________________________________
You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list

Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood
the RadSafe rules. These can be found at:
http://health.phys.iit.edu/radsaferules.html

For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings
visit: http://health.phys.iit.edu <http://health.phys.iit.edu/> 

_______________________________________________
You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list

Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood
the RadSafe rules. These can be found at:
http://health.phys.iit.edu/radsaferules.html

For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings
visit: http://health.phys.iit.edu